What a waste of time. The debate of the three financial leaders of the "big three parties" was so boring and devoid of asnwers I switched it off before it finished.
Talk of saving 5 billion here and "efficiency savings" there and fiddling about with a few taxes will do little to reduce the £168 BILLION government deficit we have had thrust on us by this incompetent government.
The tragedy is that the opposition has little idea what do do about it apart from fiddling around the edges.
Even a modest reduction in borrowing will lead to a larger debt next year.
Who do they borrow this money from?
The government printed £200 BILLION last year. What did they do with it?
I'm no economist but perhaps somebody might help me in this but if the creation of money is so simple why did the government not pay its debt with this "created wealth"
I suppose they gave it to their friends in the city to lend out at high rates of interest, leaving us to pick up the pieces.
An easy way to reduce borrowing would be to pull out of Afganistan, the EU and stop foreign aid.
These three alone would reduce our borrowing by 2/3.
The government talks of cutting inefficiency as an aim, but this is seldom achieved.They think by cutting costs this way a rise in unemployment could be avoided, failing to see that efficiency requires fewer workers and thus increases unemployment.
Unless there is a sea change in the way our country's finances are arranged we are doomed as a nation, and only the BNP has the answers.
Don't believe me? Nick Griffin foresaw this unforseen crash 4 years ago unlike senior members of all the other parties.
Meanwhile a little bird tells me Fazakerley Hospital has a ward dedicated to Somalis with TB, a disease we thought we had eradicated from this country. The cost of treating immigrants is becoming a huge burden on the NHS and a threat to our health.
SCENE IN A DOCTORS WAITING ROOM. This is a true story.
A foreigner walks into a doctors surgery and says "I want see doctor " The receptionist says he must wait his turn, about 15 minutes.
The foreigner replies "I not wait I see doctor NOW"
This request is refused and a few minutes the foreigner is called in to see the doctor. He then replies "I on phone. Tell doctor wait".
This typifies the arrogence and demanding attitude of these people who have invited theirselves to take advantage of our services.
No wonder people are fed up and turning to the BNP and think immigration is our main problem.
Yes we expect the smear stories to begin in earnest any day now but in view of the corruption and incompetence of the other parties I am not too worried and in any case they have nothing new to throw at us,so
PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN GLASS HOUSES SHOULD NOT THROW STONES.
Monday, 29 March 2010
Community Action Party Manifesto
THE COMMUNITY (COMMUNIST) ACTION PARTY - BRINGING DISHONESTY AND A LACK OF INTEGRITY INTO POLITICS.
The basis of the Community (COMMUNIST) Action Party Manifesto is to develop and pursue a “Political (COMMUNIST) Agenda” based on a consensus of uninformed public opinion, in an exclusive and dishonest manner.
The Community (COMMUNIST) Action Party recognises that community engagement is as important to national issues as it is to local issues. If elected to Parliament we will supplement the eighteen Community (COMMUNIST) Action Party Councillors already elected to Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council. We will represent the voice of local communities (COMMUNISTS) in Westminster instead of Members of Parliament representing the policies of New Labour locally.
With these points in mind the Community (COMMUNIST) Action Party will campaign on the following issues.
1) A NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE, FREE AT THE POINT OF DELIVERY
Under New Labour our health service is being privatised by stealth. This was never intended when it was originally conceived and founded. It is our intention to reverse this trend, to eliminate bureaucracy from the health service and to return to traditional values. We propose the abolition of prescription charges and the provision of a health service free of charge to all at the point of delivery and from the cradle to the grave.
2) EDUCATION, AVAILABLE, ACCESSIBLE AND FREE AT THE POINT OF DELIVERY.
Under New Labour the education of our young people is being eroded by government interference. Targets, league tables, government inspections and teachers reporting procedures are leading to a bureaucracy similar to that prevalent in our health service, police force, fire brigade and other public services.
Our schools must be given the chance to stand-alone and be accountable to parents, Governors and students. The Schools Inspectorate and other Government bureaucracies should only be in place where they have a useful role to assist and advise and not to judge. The allocation of places at local schools must take account of the wishes of local people and of parental and student choice. Schools in areas of deprivation must be given additional support to enable all students to have access to the highest standards of education. School facilities should be made available outside of normal school hours, giving young people and the community at large a place to meet, access to facilities and a sense of ownership.
School travel plans should be mandatory in all of our schools. Education at every level should be available to all regardless of their means. We are opposed to tuition fees being charged to students or their parents and call for the re-introduction of student grants linked to a commitment by students to work in this country for an agreed minimum period.
3) COMMUNITY SAFETY
Law and order must be established on the streets by better and more effective policing, manned police stations and police on the beat. It is no longer credible for New Labour to claim that we have record numbers of police, when the public don't see them and they are not available when required.
It is time for ZERO TOLERANCE of drug dealers, arsonists, thugs, thieves and racists. The present low priority given to drug-associated crime and a 93% rise in car crime in the Greater Manchester Area is unacceptable.
Sentences must be made to fit the crime to reassure the public that justice will be done and seen to be done. Community Service must be appropriate and of benefit both to the offender and to the community and not just a punishment for the offender.
We are opposed to any reduction in the number of firefighters and to any cuts in the fire service.
4) OVERSEAS AID
Real aid must be given to developing countries, not just tokenism and loans linked to punitive trade deals that create massive long term debt. We must cancel the existing long term debts of developing countries to enable them to escape from the continuous cycle of poverty. Developing countries must be supplied with the technology to enable them to become self sufficient and equal trading partners.
5) THE ENVIRONMENT
We are opposed to the destruction of our heritage and the use of green field sites and playing fields for development. We stand for the conservation and improvement of the natural and built environment and the protection of wildlife and its habitat. We will work towards the review and resetting of environmental limits of pollution released into the atmosphere by industry. We support the principle of bringing the point of sale closer to the point of consumption, a levy on waste producers such as the packaging industry and sale and return schemes to promote re-cycling. Global Trade must be reorganised and prioritised to reduce transportation and to promote local self sufficiency.
6) TERRORISM
The laws that have existed for years are more than adequate to cope with the very small number of incidents that have occurred in this country in recent times. We require effective policing and less interference by the pro-war New Labour Government and their USA allies in the affairs of other nations.
We are opposed to the draconian so-called anti-terrorist laws, introduced by the New Labour Government, that will remove more of our civil liberties and imprison people without trial and without the right to Habeas Corpus.
Habeas Corpus has existed since the Magna Carta was granted by King John at Runnymede in 1215 establishing the rights of free citizens and is regarded as the basis of civil and political liberty in England. We are opposed to the introduction of Identity Cards that would further infringe undermine our civil liberties.
7) IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM
These are bogus issues created by the media and the national parties to divert attention away from their own shortcomings. We are opposed to all forms of racism and to the anti-asylum hysteria promoted by New Labour, the Tories and the BNP.
8) TRANSPORT
We are in favour of a fully integrated public transport infrastructure, publicly controlled and maintained, effectively managed, affordable and fully accountable to the public. We want to promote the use of public transport such as rail, buses and trams and reduce the amount of road traffic congestion, pollution and fuel usage. We want heavy freight to be taken off the roads and put onto the railways.
9) EUROPE
We acknowledge that our future is inextricably linked to Europe and welcome the multi-culturism and trading relationships that membership of the European Union promotes. However we are opposed to quangos whether British or European, the European party political gravy train and the erosion of democracy both in this country and abroad.
10) IRAQ
We are opposed to the illegal invasion and war against the people of Iraq . More than 100,000 innocent civilians have lost their lives. Hundreds of thousands more have been injured maimed or physically abused and tens of thousands have had their homes destroyed. Almost one hundred British soldiers have lost their lives and hundreds more have been injured. Many have lost one or both legs. Those Members of Parliament who supported the illegal invasion of Iraq based on a web of lies should be held to account.
©2003 - Promoted by Peter Franzen,
Vote for this bunch of COMMUNIST, ISLAMIST, UAF SUPPORTERS if you DON'T WANT A FUTURE FOR YOUR CHILDREN.
NATIONAL CURRICULUM?
School lessons have been hijacked by the Government to teach its "faddish and incoherent" social policy, a leading exam expert has said.
Read about it HERE.
Morg
.
The secret plot to destroy Britain's Identity.
The secret plot to destroy Britain's Identity.
by Melanie Phillips
Of all the issues of concern to the public, immigration is possibly the most explosive — and the one about which the most lies are continuing to be told.
During the period that Labour has been in office, mass immigration has simply changed the face of Britain. The total number of immigrants since 1997 is pushing 3 million.
Ministers claim that immigration policy has been driven principally to help the economy. They have always denied that they actually set out deliberately to change the ethnic composition of the country.
Well, now we know for a certainty that this is not true. The Government embarked on a policy of mass immigration to change Britain into a multicultural society — and they kept this momentous aim secret from the people whose votes they sought.
Worse still, they did this knowing that it ran directly counter to the wishes of those voters, whose concerns about immigration they dismissed as racist; and they further concealed official warnings that large-scale immigration would bring about significant increases in crime.
The truth about this scandal was first blurted out last October by Andrew Neather, a former Labour Party speechwriter.
He wrote that until the new points-based system limiting foreign workers was introduced in 2008 - in response to increasing public uproar — government policy for the previous eight years had been aimed at promoting mass immigration.
The "driving political purpose" of this policy, wrote Neather, was "to make the UK truly multicultural" — and one subsidiary motivation was "to rub the Right's nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date."
Ministers, however, went to great lengths to keep their real intentions secret from the public — with, said Neather, a "paranoia" that these would reach the media — since they knew their core white working-class voters would react very badly.
Accordingly, a report about immigration by a government advisory unit, which formed the core of a landmark speech in 2000 announcing the loosening of border controls, went through several drafts before it was finally published — and the Government's true intentions about changing Britain into a multicultural society were removed from the final version.
After revealing all this, Neather subsequently tried to backtrack, saying that his views had been twisted out of all recognition by the media. They hadn't been.
Nevertheless, Jack Straw, who was Home Secretary at the time the immigration policy was changed, said he had read press reports of Neather's remarks with incredulity since they were "the reverse of the truth."
Now we know, however, that they were indeed the truth. We know this only because details of the advisory unit's report which were excised from the final published version — just as Neather said — have been emerging into the public domain through Freedom of Information requests.
The pressure group MigrationWatch obtained an early draft which revealed that the Government's intention was to encourage mass immigration for "social objectives" — in other words, to produce a more ethnically diverse society — but that on no fewer than six occasions this phrase was excised from the final version, published some three months later.
Now we further discover, from what was removed from seemingly another early draft, that the aim was not just to implement this policy of mass immigration without the knowledge or consent of the British people.
It was done in the full knowledge that the people actually wanted immigration reduced.
And we also discover that those who expressed such concerns were dismissed with utter contempt as racists — and it was further suggested that ministers should manipulate public opinion in an attempt to change people's attitudes.
Well, they have certainly tried to do that by hanging the disgusting label of "racism" round the neck of anyone who dares voice such concerns.
Thus the eminent and decent Labour MP Frank Field found himself smeared as a racist for daring to suggest that the rate of immigration should be reduced.
What bullying arrogance. The real prejudice is surely to believe that opposition to mass migration can never be based on any reasonable objection.
The implications of this covert policy are quite staggering. Ministers deliberately set out to change the cultural and ethnic identity of this country in secret.
They did this mainly because they hated what Britain was, a largely homogeneous society rooted in 1,000 years of history. They therefore set out to replace it by a totally new kind of multicultural society — and one in which the vast majority of newcomers could be expected to vote Labour.
They set out to destroy the right of the British people to live in a society defined by a common history, religion, law, language and traditions. They set out to destroy for ever what it means to be culturally British and to put another "multicultural" identity in its place.
And they then had the gall to declare that to have love for or pride in that authentic British identity, and to want to protect and uphold it, was racist.
So the very deepest feelings of people for their country were damned as bigotry, for which crime they were to have their noses rubbed in mass immigration until they changed their attitudes.
What an appalling abuse of power. Yet even now they are denying that this is what they did. This week, the Immigration Minister Phil Woolas blustered that the advisory unit report had not been accepted by ministers at the time.
But the fact is that mass immigration actually happened. The only thing ministers hadn't accepted was that the truth about their intentions should be revealed to the public.
Surreally, Mr. Woolas further claims that the Government has brought immigration down.
But the reductions he is talking about have taken place on the separate issue of asylum. The impact of the Government's new points scheme upon the record rate of immigration growth has been negligible.
The truth is that these early drafts of the advisory unit's report have blown open one of the greatest political scandals of the Labour years. At no stage did Labour's election manifestos make any reference to a policy of mass immigration nor the party's aim of creating a multicultural society.
What we have been subjected to is a deliberate deception of the voters and a gross abuse of democracy.
There could scarcely be a more profound abuse of the democratic process than to set out to destroy a nation's demographic and cultural identity through a conscious deception of the people of that nation. It is an act of collective national treachery.
Now we face imminently another General Election. And now we know that in their hearts, Labour politicians hold the great mass of the public, many of them their own voters, in total contempt as racist bigots — all for wanting to live in a country whose identity they share.
There could hardly be a more worthy issue for the Conservative Party to leap upon. Yet their response is muted through their own visceral terror of appearing racist.
The resulting despair over the refusal of the mainstream parties to address this issue threatens to drive many into the arms of the truly racist British National Party.
If that happens, the fault will lie not just with Labour's ideological malice and mendacity, but with the spinelessness of an entire political class.
Melanie Phillips is a journalist and blogs at The Spectator.
She is author of "Londonistan," which describes how London became Islamicized. British authorities accomodate Muslims, their demands, their desire for shari'a law and their culture at the expense of English traditions and culture. "Londonistan" makes the point, in Tom Gross's words, that "many if not most members of Britain's governing class — its politicians, judges, intellectuals, journalists, church leaders, and even senior police — have turned right and wrong on their heads and encouraged Londonistan to develop." As the Muslim population grows, it becomes radicalized and -- again in Gross's words -- "Radical Islamists in Britain have already produced some of the organizers behind the Bali bombings and the beheading of Daniel Pearl, the 9/11 plotter Zacarias Moussaoui, the shoe-bomber Richard Reid, and suicide bombers that have murdered innocent Israelis, Iraqis and Indians. British-based terrorists have also been behind attacks in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Kenya, Tanzania, Saudi Arabia, Morocco and Russia."
Taken from - Middle East and Terrorism
http://israelagainstterror.blogspot.com/2010/03/secret-plot-to-destroy-britains.html
by Melanie Phillips
Of all the issues of concern to the public, immigration is possibly the most explosive — and the one about which the most lies are continuing to be told.
During the period that Labour has been in office, mass immigration has simply changed the face of Britain. The total number of immigrants since 1997 is pushing 3 million.
Ministers claim that immigration policy has been driven principally to help the economy. They have always denied that they actually set out deliberately to change the ethnic composition of the country.
Well, now we know for a certainty that this is not true. The Government embarked on a policy of mass immigration to change Britain into a multicultural society — and they kept this momentous aim secret from the people whose votes they sought.
Worse still, they did this knowing that it ran directly counter to the wishes of those voters, whose concerns about immigration they dismissed as racist; and they further concealed official warnings that large-scale immigration would bring about significant increases in crime.
The truth about this scandal was first blurted out last October by Andrew Neather, a former Labour Party speechwriter.
He wrote that until the new points-based system limiting foreign workers was introduced in 2008 - in response to increasing public uproar — government policy for the previous eight years had been aimed at promoting mass immigration.
The "driving political purpose" of this policy, wrote Neather, was "to make the UK truly multicultural" — and one subsidiary motivation was "to rub the Right's nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date."
Ministers, however, went to great lengths to keep their real intentions secret from the public — with, said Neather, a "paranoia" that these would reach the media — since they knew their core white working-class voters would react very badly.
Accordingly, a report about immigration by a government advisory unit, which formed the core of a landmark speech in 2000 announcing the loosening of border controls, went through several drafts before it was finally published — and the Government's true intentions about changing Britain into a multicultural society were removed from the final version.
After revealing all this, Neather subsequently tried to backtrack, saying that his views had been twisted out of all recognition by the media. They hadn't been.
Nevertheless, Jack Straw, who was Home Secretary at the time the immigration policy was changed, said he had read press reports of Neather's remarks with incredulity since they were "the reverse of the truth."
Now we know, however, that they were indeed the truth. We know this only because details of the advisory unit's report which were excised from the final published version — just as Neather said — have been emerging into the public domain through Freedom of Information requests.
The pressure group MigrationWatch obtained an early draft which revealed that the Government's intention was to encourage mass immigration for "social objectives" — in other words, to produce a more ethnically diverse society — but that on no fewer than six occasions this phrase was excised from the final version, published some three months later.
Now we further discover, from what was removed from seemingly another early draft, that the aim was not just to implement this policy of mass immigration without the knowledge or consent of the British people.
It was done in the full knowledge that the people actually wanted immigration reduced.
And we also discover that those who expressed such concerns were dismissed with utter contempt as racists — and it was further suggested that ministers should manipulate public opinion in an attempt to change people's attitudes.
Well, they have certainly tried to do that by hanging the disgusting label of "racism" round the neck of anyone who dares voice such concerns.
Thus the eminent and decent Labour MP Frank Field found himself smeared as a racist for daring to suggest that the rate of immigration should be reduced.
What bullying arrogance. The real prejudice is surely to believe that opposition to mass migration can never be based on any reasonable objection.
The implications of this covert policy are quite staggering. Ministers deliberately set out to change the cultural and ethnic identity of this country in secret.
They did this mainly because they hated what Britain was, a largely homogeneous society rooted in 1,000 years of history. They therefore set out to replace it by a totally new kind of multicultural society — and one in which the vast majority of newcomers could be expected to vote Labour.
They set out to destroy the right of the British people to live in a society defined by a common history, religion, law, language and traditions. They set out to destroy for ever what it means to be culturally British and to put another "multicultural" identity in its place.
And they then had the gall to declare that to have love for or pride in that authentic British identity, and to want to protect and uphold it, was racist.
So the very deepest feelings of people for their country were damned as bigotry, for which crime they were to have their noses rubbed in mass immigration until they changed their attitudes.
What an appalling abuse of power. Yet even now they are denying that this is what they did. This week, the Immigration Minister Phil Woolas blustered that the advisory unit report had not been accepted by ministers at the time.
But the fact is that mass immigration actually happened. The only thing ministers hadn't accepted was that the truth about their intentions should be revealed to the public.
Surreally, Mr. Woolas further claims that the Government has brought immigration down.
But the reductions he is talking about have taken place on the separate issue of asylum. The impact of the Government's new points scheme upon the record rate of immigration growth has been negligible.
The truth is that these early drafts of the advisory unit's report have blown open one of the greatest political scandals of the Labour years. At no stage did Labour's election manifestos make any reference to a policy of mass immigration nor the party's aim of creating a multicultural society.
What we have been subjected to is a deliberate deception of the voters and a gross abuse of democracy.
There could scarcely be a more profound abuse of the democratic process than to set out to destroy a nation's demographic and cultural identity through a conscious deception of the people of that nation. It is an act of collective national treachery.
Now we face imminently another General Election. And now we know that in their hearts, Labour politicians hold the great mass of the public, many of them their own voters, in total contempt as racist bigots — all for wanting to live in a country whose identity they share.
There could hardly be a more worthy issue for the Conservative Party to leap upon. Yet their response is muted through their own visceral terror of appearing racist.
The resulting despair over the refusal of the mainstream parties to address this issue threatens to drive many into the arms of the truly racist British National Party.
If that happens, the fault will lie not just with Labour's ideological malice and mendacity, but with the spinelessness of an entire political class.
Melanie Phillips is a journalist and blogs at The Spectator.
She is author of "Londonistan," which describes how London became Islamicized. British authorities accomodate Muslims, their demands, their desire for shari'a law and their culture at the expense of English traditions and culture. "Londonistan" makes the point, in Tom Gross's words, that "many if not most members of Britain's governing class — its politicians, judges, intellectuals, journalists, church leaders, and even senior police — have turned right and wrong on their heads and encouraged Londonistan to develop." As the Muslim population grows, it becomes radicalized and -- again in Gross's words -- "Radical Islamists in Britain have already produced some of the organizers behind the Bali bombings and the beheading of Daniel Pearl, the 9/11 plotter Zacarias Moussaoui, the shoe-bomber Richard Reid, and suicide bombers that have murdered innocent Israelis, Iraqis and Indians. British-based terrorists have also been behind attacks in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Kenya, Tanzania, Saudi Arabia, Morocco and Russia."
Taken from - Middle East and Terrorism
http://israelagainstterror.blogspot.com/2010/03/secret-plot-to-destroy-britains.html
Military humour.
Stolen from Oh What NOW, who found it on Daily Politics
I nicked it from here:
http://mrsrigbysays.blogspot.com/2010/03/military-humour.html
Morg
.
A U.S. army platoon was marching north of Fallujah when they came upon an Iraqi insurgent, badly injured and unconscious on the left-hand side of the road.
On the right-hand side was a British soldier in a similar, but less serious state. The Brit was conscious and alert. As first aid was given to both men, the American platoon leader asked the injured soldier what had happened.
The soldier reported: “I was recce-ing the highway here when suddenly, coming towards me from the south was a heavily-armed insurgent. We saw each other and both took cover in the ditches along the road.
“I yelled to him that Saddam Hussein had been a miserable, lowlife scumbag who’d got what he deserved. The insurgent yelled back that Gordon Brown is a fat, useless, lying, one-eyed porridge wog. And furthermore, Lord Mandelson is a pillow-biting gay bastard!
“So I said that Osama Bin Laden dresses and ponces about like a frigid, hatchet-faced lesbian.
He retaliated by saying that so does Harriet Harman.
“And, there we were – in the middle of the road – shaking hands, when the f*****g bus hit us.”
I nicked it from here:
http://mrsrigbysays.blogspot.com/2010/03/military-humour.html
Morg
.
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)